The aid to sustain life through cloning is also valid in the possible cures for numerous diseases such as cancer and leukemia. The stem cells of cloned embryos would have the capability of differentiating into different tissues such as muscle or skin (Weiss 2). Then scientists alter the genetic makeup of these stem cells to force the cells to differentiate into a specific tissue needed for a patient (Mckinnell 50, Wilmut 4). This could lead to cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and leukemia. These diseases involve a pathological process that damages specific cell populations which are unable to repair or replace themselves. Doctors could use the genetically modified stem cells taken from the patient to replace the damaged cells (Wilmut 4). The study of the differentiation of cloned stem cells could provide information about aging or the causes of cancer (Kasisser 2). While cancer involves gene mutation during the duplication of cells scientists can study the progression of genes in the duplication of cloned stem cells. This could also prove to be helpful in the study of aging because many scientists believe that gene mutation in cell reproduction or duplication causes aging (Willams 3). The effects of this new technology on medical research would be invaluable because the cure to diseases such as cancer and the answers to aging would prolong many people’s lives. Thus cloning has the potential of saving millions of lives. This significant effect proves to be far too valuable to sacrifice in order to eliminate the unlikely implications of cloning.

While cloning would save many lives the use of cloning would also aid in the creation of life. Infertile and homosexual couples would be able to use their own DNA to produce children. If the husband were the source of the DNA and the wife provided the donor egg that received the nuclear transfer, the infertile couple would have a child biologically related to each of them rather than using anonymous gamete or embryo donation (Robertson 1). New cloning technology would also prevent the transmission of genetic disease. Doctors could use advanced forms of gene therapy to treat embryos at high risk of inheriting genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia. The modified DNA from the embryo could be transferred to eggs to create children entirely free of the genetic disease (Elmer-Dewitt 3). Therefore, cloning would promote life and fulfill the desires of many couples to have children. This advancement in reproduction would aid society by giving more people the opportunity to live and contribute to society.

However, many religious activists argue that cloning is unnatural because it separates reproduction from human sexual activity (McCormick 47). Though cloning is not natural, it is not necessarily immoral (Madigan 5). People have always carried an instinctive antipathy for anything unnatural such as nuclear power or genetically engineered plants (Madigan 5). However, unnatural and man-made objects are not necessarily bad. It is unnatural to wear clothes or fly, but clothes keep people warm while flying is efficient transportation. These man-made things prove that many unnatural things improve lives. Cloning is no exception because it aids the creation of life. A ban would only suppress life and prevent many couples from producing and raising their own children.

These religious objections are not solely based on the unnatural reproduction of cloning. Various religions claim that cloning is an attempt to defy God’s control over human life and the creation of life. However, these claims are only dogmatic pronouncements without any objective reasoning. This prejudiced thinking is apparent because people always connect morality and religion. When doubts about the morality of new scientific developments confront people, they immediately turn to their sacred writings and religious leaders for guidance. However, morality does not necessarily require God’s word. People must first determine what is moral before they decide what God believes is right. As Plato pointed out, people cannot deduce ethics from divine revelation until they first determine which of the many competing revelations are true and authentic. They must discover which revelations make moral sense. Thus morality is logically prior to religion. Religious biases are also unreliable because most religious traditions developed in ancient times under different conditions. Though some religious rules are still valid because they reflect enduring problems of civilization, other precepts lack contemporary relevance. The authors of religious texts such as the Bible and the Koran did not have the knowledge to address the problems that confront people today such as the ethics of in vitro fertilization or cloning. It is impossible to apply these religious precepts to modern society. Therefore, cloning is not necessarily wrong due to religious beliefs.

The most common religious objection is that cloning would defy God’s authority over human creation and life (Goodfield 94). The passage from the Koran, “He alone grants life and deals death, and unto Him you all must return,” serves as a reminder of God’s incomparable power (Dworkin 3). This concern over “playing God” was apparent in the debate over birth control, organ transplants, and assisted suicide. Any attempt by humans to control their destiny and shape their lives is always met with the objection that people are “playing God.” Critics claim that God intended nature to take its course without any human interference. Any defiance of nature would be a defiance of God’s authority. However, disease is a part of nature, but advancing technology helps people survive disease and improve their lives. If all humans have the right to live, they have the right to do whatever is possible to sustain their lives even though their methods defy the course of nature. Cloning would be justifiable because it also promotes and improves life by sustaining the lives of the sick and aiding reproduction. As a result, the benefits of cloning to medicine and fertility show that cloning does not usurp God’s authority but only aids life.

Though these religious criticisms are untrue and unjustified, people still believe that cloning would threaten morality and ethics. The one idea that surfaces from many criticisms is that society is treading on the edge of disaster by attempting to duplicate humans. However, objective reasoning proves that the possible implications of cloning are clearly unlikely. Cloning would not threaten people’s identity and uniqueness because clones would have unique and separate personalities from their predecessors. The use of cloned organs would not exploit clones for their organs, but cloning would enable others to sustain their lives with new organs. Though cloning would not necessarily be natural, the benefits to infertile couples and disease research would promote life. These benefits clearly outweigh the unlikely implications of cloning. As a result, it would be unfair to humans if the government eliminates these benefits in order to eliminate the unlikely problems of cloning. Cloning would enable humans to exceed their natural limitations in reproduction and health, but this advancement would not defy God’s authority over human life. If God gives people the right to live, they must also have the right to sustain and improve their lives. Scientific advancement enables people to improve their well-being and future. Advancements such as in vitro fertilization and organ transplantation raised many ethical questions, but people eventually accepted these advancements after noticing the widespread benefits to medicine and society. Cloning is no different from the scientific and technological advancements in the past because people refuse to accept the limits established by nature such as aging or disease. The medical benefits of cloning is one more way human beings have devised to overcome the constraints of the uncaring natural world (Levine 348). Therefore, the real threat to humankind is the shackling of scientific advancement and inquiry. By eliminating the unlikely implications of cloning, the government will also eliminate the invaluable benefits to medicine and society. Scientists must have the opportunity to experiment with cloning in order to find its best uses and learn from mistakes. Cloning research should be free to innovate to eventually solve the biological limitations and problems that plague humans. Humankind could rejoice in the profits of scientific and technological advancement.